Google to remove View Image button from Image Search According to Getty Images

Senior Member

joined:July 7, 2003
posts:784
votes: 109

I just received an email from Getty Images (I am a contributor), stating that they will be withdrawing their complaint to the European Commission about Google Image Search as Google have agreed to make some important changes:

Google has worked closely with us to address many issues raised by Getty Images around Google Images, the image search functionality of Google. Moving forward, Google has agreed to make changes in Image Search, including making the copyright disclaimer more prominent and removing the view image button. This is a benefit to all image owners globally and we expect this to have a positive impact on traffic to our site.

Senior Member

joined:May 14, 2006
posts:692
votes: 59

It's good news but not yet what I wanted. I understand that Google will continue hotlinking and stealing our server's bandwidth. A thumbnail instead of full size images is the only acceptable solution for me.

Senior Member

joined:Aug 5, 2009
posts:1669
votes: 329

Is there any quote from Google saying the button is gone, period from every image search? Are people gullible enough to believe that this news snippet actually means wide spread remove of the view image button in entirely? Getty has the loud voice (bad PR scare) and they are the ones getting the deal from Google. This is for them, not for everyone correct? I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see the clear admittance of wrongdoing as some Google does..Afterall, what's next? The blocking of copyrighted works on YouTube? Image rights are different that video rights or so it seems. If people can show the increase in revenue with the button's removal, can't they pursue some type of damages?

Senior Member

joined:July 7, 2003
posts:784
votes: 109

Is there any quote from Google saying the button is gone, period from every image search? Are people gullible enough to believe that this news snippet actually means wide spread remove of the view image button in entirely? Getty has the loud voice (bad PR scare) and they are the ones getting the deal from Google. This is for them, not for everyone correct? I hope I'm wrong but I just don't see the clear admittance of wrongdoing as some Google does..Afterall, what's next? The blocking of copyrighted works on YouTube? Image rights are different that video rights or so it seems. If people can show the increase in revenue with the button's removal, can't they pursue some type of damages?

It seems that you are correct and this will only apply to images from Getty Images. So you are correct, only the richest and largest companies with teams of lawyers can live with the Google of 2018.

You know, and no doubt even saying this goes against the charter for this forum, but there was a moment when we (the independent webmasters) could have organised ourselves and stood up to Google. I fear that it is now too late and the 'charter' of this forum will have contributed to the decline and eventual disappearance of independent webmasters and this very website.

Senior Member

joined:Aug 5, 2009
posts:1669
votes: 329

It's worse than what I said. It's essentially a hand shake agreement. A licensing deal. Money squashes all beefs. All can be forgiven with enough money. From what I read, this agreement gives access for Google to Getty images in some profound way. I won't be surprised to see "Google Images - Powered by Getty Images". Or Google will just buy them out next year or the year after that. To me on the surface, I would say Getty doesn't care about copyright outside of their own self interests. They don't stand for anything. If you are a photographer not included with Getty, do you think they are concerned about the "view image" button that will most likely be shown on that persons photos? Wishful thinking on my part. If it's wrong to show peoples content in this manner, with the "view image" button, then it's wrong. It's unethical at the very least and the barf bag settlement says as much. It proves what I say here all the time. People only view things from their own self interests. If they are making money from organic search or by providing SEO services, then most people can't speak of the truth. Few people can call a spade a spade regardless of the subject of discussion is unethical by nature. A lot of garbage is spoken around here as a result. Ultimately there is no such thing as copyright unless you are a billion+ dollar company that has some type of PR legs. But it's interesting to me that this topic is deader than a doornail. The people affected most by the image search changes are vacant from the forums. So far I would say the newspapers and now Getty were able to get their way, at least to some extent. Based on what I know on this agreement, I would say F Getty.

Full Member

joined:Apr 20, 2017
posts:334
votes: 73

Since this morning, I no longer see the "View Image" button (from Europe). Also, the size and mention that the image might be copyrighted is showing right under the picture now. This is for all sites, not only Getty.

Senior Member

joined:July 7, 2003
posts:784
votes: 109

Since this morning, I no longer see the "View Image" button (from Europe). Also, the size and mention that the image might be copyrighted is showing right under the picture now. This is for all sites, not only Getty.

I hope that you are right and that they are rolling it out, however I am still seeing the "View Image" button.

Senior Member from GB

joined:Oct 14, 2013
posts:3079
votes: 436

I'm in the UK and still seeing the View Image button today across all main browswers.

I was at a major widget conference recently talking to various companies and asking why they didn't update their sites any more, most of them said pointless since people simply steal their images and never click through to their sites.

I'm one of the very few in my widget trade who still updates sites however I have a different marketing strategy to 90+% of my competitors.

Administrator from GB

joined:May 9, 2000
posts:25734
votes: 822

Google has confirmed the button is going.

Today we're launching some changes on Google Images to help connect users and useful websites. This will include removing the View Image button. The Visit button remains, so users can see images in the context of the webpages they're on.

Senior Member

joined:Aug 5, 2009
posts:1669
votes: 329

Well I've never been happier to be wrong. I'm wrong and astonished to the point of almost being speechless. I will always remember the day(s) Google decided to have the "view image". It chopped down my traffic and revenue to an absurd level. Not just one site, but many sites. However it only got worse because image search was one remaining avenue to get traffic to my sites. The dominance of brand in the SERPS often times mean image search was it. Then that essentially ended with Google's move of essentially hosting every image on the planet.

To me and for what I do, this would have to be one of the biggest, most positive moves I've seen from Google. It's so unexpected I can't even really comprehend it. Most people like me may (or may not) see the charts and graphs showing the before and after. So what if tomorrow my traffic goes up by 25%? What if my revenue goes up 20%? It makes me ask about the damage I've dealt with for the YEARS of this image search takeover. I'm not expecting a miracle on this reversal. It does however have me scratching me head. How could they decide to reverse this?

So rather than sticking it to Getty, I want to say thank you. The quote from Google about "connect users to useful websites" is contradictory in the very least. I just think it's another situation where the left arm doesn't have any clue what the right arm is doing. The image search developed a conscious (brought about by a lawsuit) but the search arm is going deeper and deeper into hosting everyone's juicy answers and premium content. My point is, if Google is admitting the image thing was less than ethical, then how the Christ can they say the current search situation is beneficial or is connecting users to useful websites? The answers and enhanced search results pages are doing everything the opposite of that.

So for me, I'll digest this. I've had years and years of gradual misery thanks to the image search so I will need to regain my footing before I can accept this. I've had very little reason to be hopeful, but for me this is a nugget of hope. The cynical side of me says it's the lawsuit talking: "help connect users with useful websites". What they should say is that they are sorry and that they are RECONNECTING users with useful websites which is THE ETHICAL WAY the company used to run.

Last thought: So what about Bing? They are more blatant and worse than Google when it comes to images (and now video too) so wouldn't they be doing the same? Surely Getty went after Bing?

Senior Member

joined:Apr 1, 2016
posts:2266
votes: 603

The difference between Google and Bing is that Google dominates search, specially mobile search. Bing may bring some users but I am fairly certain that once one segments Bing regular search and Bing image search the total amount of traffic from image search is likely marginal at best. So simply block bing's image bot. If many webmasters do this, they will get the message pretty quick.

Senior Member

joined:Aug 5, 2009
posts:1669
votes: 329

@ken, yes, sadly true. Almost funny actually. Surely to goodness this loophole cannot be part of the rollout. Surely they can't be so stupid as to say all this goodness, remove the view image button but allow a right click > view image to get the full sized image. Could this honestly be another kick in the nuts? I'm hoping this is a caching issue or something else related to that. I'm refraining from saying more about this "loophole" because surely it can't be working as planned just yet. Imagine though if it is! I count on a majority of people being less than intelligent when it comes to right clicking etc, so most of the traffic will likely filter through. The thieves are let's say, a bit more patient and knowledgeable. Frankly they aren't the target market. People need to be spoon fed and right clicking and viewing image is above the heads of many. I don't say that with arrogance or elitist attitude. I need those types of users because they will also click ads! I love them!

Regarding Bing, of course they are nothing in the overall scheme of things. However what they did do is give Google the greenlight on doing the same damaging things. If Bing rolls it out, then too can Google. And they did! So all Bing exists for is to allow Google to copycat, because afterall, if they did it first, and then two people are doing it, then it's a shared blame and responsibility. This is exactly how we got to this place. Thank Bing. However if Getty sued and they had the cards, then it has been proven illegal or at least wrong. Under those terms, why would Bing persist to do something that is clearly WRONG and has been PROVEN WRONG?

Surely to goodness this loophole cannot be part of the rollout. Surely they can't be so stupid as to say all this goodness, remove the view image button but allow a right click > view image to get the full sized image

There's no "loophole." Right-click is a browser function. Webpages that interfere with user's rights has always brought the wrath of the internet.

Senior Member

joined:Aug 5, 2009
posts:1669
votes: 329

Well I think the fact that Google is hosting the full sized image, isn't that the point I was making here? The point of the exercise was to get people to the source website right? If we can sort all large images, then right click, view, download via Google I don't see how we aren't back to square one. To be completely honest as well, it has been so long since this change took place, I'm struggling to remember how the heck it was. Maybe as it stands now, this was the system in place prior to the "view image" button and other changes Google made.

Senior Member

I wouldn't get too excited about this. It looks like all you have to do is mouse over the image and right click on view image. Bingo, full image, no visit to the owners site.

I'm not excited at all. Actually, it looks like the "smart" guys at Getty got cheated by Google. Google is still hotlinking and stealing our full size images (and server bandwidth). Right click, "view image" and I can copy any photo I want without visiting the website. It works for Getty images too ...

The hotlinking is totally unacceptable and nothing more or less than theft. I still can't believe that a company like Google is doing this! It's like using someone else's fuel to drive your own car or using your neighbour's electricity without paying.

The only correct and acceptable solution is a thumbnail hosted by Google, just like it used to be years ago.

Senior Member

joined:July 7, 2003
posts:784
votes: 109

The hotlinking is totally unacceptable and nothing more or less than theft. I still can't believe that a company like Google is doing this! It's like using someone else's fuel to drive your own car or using your neighbour's electricity without paying.

The only correct and acceptable solution is a thumbnail hosted by Google, just like it used to be years ago.

Agreed, hotlinking has been considered unethical since the birth of the web, and for me, the moment Google started doing this, was the moment that they became a bad player in the web ecosystem. Let us not forget that we are paying for that bandwidth.